Canada's Integration into U.S. Homeland
Security and Use of Police Powers

Canada Is Not Part of the U.S. Homeland!

- Pauline Easton -

On March 10, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security John
Kelly became the first member of the Trump cabinet to make an
official visit to Canada. Whereas the U.S. Secretary of State is
responsible for relations with foreign countries, the Secretary
of Homeland Security oversees many of the internal U.S. security
agencies including U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Secret
Service, Federal Protective Service, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and Coast Guard.

It is telling of the
perspective of the U.S. towards Canada
and the Trudeau government's acquiescence that the Trump
administration's first emissary to Canada represents Homeland
Security. The mission of the Department of Homeland Security is
to "safeguard the American people, our homeland, and our values."
Official reports of what was discussed during Kelly's visit to
Canada indicate that a main issue is for the U.S. to also
"secure" Canada by expanding U.S. authority into Canada and
eliminating the border as a limit to U.S. jurisdiction.

The Secretary of Homeland Security is one of a number
of former
military
figures placed in control of civilian agencies in the new U.S.
administration. He is a former high-ranking U.S. military
commander of U.S. Southern Command and of the
Multi-National Force-West during the U.S. occupation of Iraq
from February 2008 to February 2009. In Canada, Kelly held
meetings on a broad range of subjects including "aviation
security, law enforcement collaboration, infrastructure, and
immigration, refugee and visa policy." He met with Minister of
Public Safety Canada Ralph Goodale in Ottawa, Minister of
Transport Marc Garneau, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and
Citizenship Ahmed Hussen and Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia
Freeland.

To justify increasing the use of police powers over
civilian
affairs, the visit was used to promote claims by Kelly and others
of widespread terror threats against Canadian airlines. Even
reports of the alleged misuse of arbitrary police powers towards
Canadians at the border was used to suggest that either the
actions were not arbitrary or that they were warranted. For
instance, Secretary Kelly dismissed concerns of many Canadians
about arbitrary profiling at the border saying that those who
have been denied entry or detained and questioned should be
viewed as suspects and possible threats to security. "Those who
are stopped, a small handful, there is a reason for stopping
them. Whatever they tell the press is their business but no one
is stopped to be checked for their religion or their political
opinion," Kelly told the Globe and Mail. Earlier, Kelly
told the Canadian Press that people may be stopped if their name
turns up on a list. "There is a reason why," he said. "It's not
their race, it's not their religion, it's not the language they
speak."

Meanwhile, Goodale refused to address the serious
concerns of
Canadians over the number of incidents of apparent racial,
political and other profiling they have experienced at the border.
Admitting
that there have been "a number of incidents in the last
several weeks," Goodale said that "if they [Canadians] feel in
some way aggrieved, to make sure they take advantage of that
recourse process ... if people don't file a complaint, then there's
no way to know for sure how many of these incidents are taking
place."

The conclusion Canadians
are supposed to draw is that the use
of arbitrary powers is always legitimate because they provide
security, which is simply not the case. The entire discussion and
presentation of the issue is misleading because police powers are
by definition arbitrary. Through sleight of hand, both government
of police powers and the U.S takeover of Canadian jurisdictions
become a fait accompli.

Canadians should not fall into the trap which suggests
that the use of arbitrary police powers is justified in the name of
providing security so long as regulations are put in place to curtail
excesses or abuses and identify them when they take place. This
discourse about legitimate and illegitimate profiling,
information-sharing, detentions and deportations is used to justify a
government of police powers. It may serve to recall that in Nazi
Germany laws were passed to strip Jews of citizenship rights and
convert them into subjects of the Reich. The Nuremberg Laws were
anti-Semitic laws introduced on September 15, 1935 by the Reichstag at
a special meeting convened at the annual Nuremberg Rally of the Nazi
Party. However, so-called moderates in the Hitler bureaucracy
complained that to apply the law, they needed regulations to identify
who was a Jew and their degree of Jewishness. This in-fighting between
the extremist and moderate wings of the Nazi bureaucracy is not
dissimilar to the fight between the "extremists" or "far-right" and
those in the U.S. and Canadian ruling circles that are quite happy to
accommodate themselves to the police powers but want them to be part of
a rule of law.

The visit of the Secretary of Homeland Security as the
first official visit of a Trump cabinet member to Canada heralds
further treachery on the part of a Canadian government which is putting
Canada under U.S. jurisdiction at a time the dangers of war against
U.S. rivals is increasing, including the latest U.S. aggression against
Syria and attempts to isolate Russia. Claims to defend the U.S.
"homeland" embroil Canadians in accepting the use of police
powers under the guise that they can be made "non-arbitrary" or
that arbitrariness is an "unintended consequence" which must be
accepted for the greater good.

This is unacceptable.

Oppose All Pretexts for Expanding U.S. Authority
Over Canada
and Canadians!

- Enver Villamizar -

The Trudeau government's Bill C-23, An Act
respecting
the preclearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United
States, proposes to greatly expand the powers and presence of
U.S. border agents in Canada. The bill was introduced on June 17,
2016 and on March 6 was referred to the Standing Committee
on Public Safety and National Security.

"preclearance" is a
process for clearing customs of the
destination country before leaving the country of origin. Bill
C-23 would expand this practice from select airports in Canada to
land and water crossings, permit preclearance of cargo by U.S.
agents in Canadian facilities, permit U.S. agents to carry
weapons and detain, search and use force against Canadians within
preclearance facilities in Canada. It would also give the
Minister of Public Safety the power to designate new preclearance
facilities within which U.S. agents would have
these powers. Unlike in the current limited preclearance
arrangements in some Canadian airports, U.S. agents would be
permitted to detain Canadians if they choose to leave during the
customs process.[1]

Bill C-23 would implement an agreement signed on March
15,
2016 during Prime Minister Trudeau's first official state visit
to the U.S. under President Obama. The overall framework for
expanding the placement of U.S. agents in Canada through U.S.
preclearance operations was part of the "Beyond the Border
Security and Competitiveness Agreement" signed between the Harper
government and the Obama administration in 2011. In 2011 when the
Harper government held consultations with those described as
"stakeholders" on how to implement the
Beyond the Border agreement, nearly half of the views they received
opposed any expansion of the presence of U.S. security
forces in Canada. In this respect, both the Harper and Trudeau
governments have proceeded without Canadians' consent and in the
face of their opposition.

According to the Trudeau government, the first new
preclearance facilities will be installed at Billy Bishop Airport in
Toronto, Jean Lesage Airport in Quebec City and for
rail passengers at Montreal Central Station and the Rocky
Mountaineer railway in British Columbia, as well as "certain rail
and marine sites in BC." While the agreement is said to be
reciprocal, no Canadian preclearance facilities have yet been
announced for the U.S.

Irrational and Self-Serving Argument

When Bill C-23 was introduced prior to the November 8
U.S.
election, the Liberals emphasized preclearance as a means to
make travel to and trade with the U.S. "more efficient." Press
releases from Public Safety Canada simply announced "action to
ensure more efficient travel between Canada and U.S." and that
the government has introduced a bill "that will bring economic
and travel benefits" to various regions. The government stated
that now, more Canadians will "enjoy the benefits of preclearance,
which include direct access to more U.S.
destinations, and greater economic growth for local economies
that will benefit from increased tourism."

Since that time, the Trump
faction of the U.S. ruling
class
prevailed over the Clinton faction. It has sought to govern
through the unfettered use of police powers, including a series
of destabilizing, warmongering and racist executive orders. Two
of these executive orders, banning entry into the U.S. of
citizens from several countries targeted by the U.S. and halting
acceptance of refugees, have had implications for the Canada-U.S.
border and the rights of Canadians while traveling.

Those executive orders -- the first issued January 27
and met
by mass resistance and court challenges, and the second issued
March 6, a version of the first designed to comply with court
orders -- have led to increasing denials of Canadian citizens and
residents attempting to cross the border and uncertainty about
whether Canadian citizens who also hold citizenship in any of the
targeted countries would be permitted into the U.S. Various
organizations, from the Girl Guides of Canada to the Toronto
District School Board, have announced that they will no longer
organize trips to the U.S. so that no one is turned away. Many
cases have come to light of profiling of Canadians at the border.[2]
According to media, new "extreme vetting" measures will soon be
enacted to force travelers to give border agents access to phones
and social media accounts as well as answer questions about their
beliefs.

With the serious concerns of Canadians about themselves
and
their peers being targeted at the border, the government of
Canada now cynically claims that placing armed U.S. border agents
in Canada is a measure to defend the rights of Canadians. On
February 21, Minister of Public Safety Ralph Goodale said that
Bill C-23 will mean that U.S. border procedures are carried out
"under the protective umbrella of Canadian law and the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms." His
Parliamentary Secretary Mark Holland even suggested, "If
something goes wrong ... we would want to be on the Canadian side
of the border." To claim concern for "something going wrong" when
the Liberal government has not spoken a word in defence of
Canadians who are already being profiled and subjected to
arbitrary measures is cold comfort.

The justification for Bill
C-23 is irrational as it does not
start from the premise of how to defend the rights of Canadians,
their security or the economy. The starting point is instead that
Canada and its economy are to be subjected to a government of
police powers, not a government of laws and that national
security is defended under the jackboots of the U.S. imperialist
state and its police powers. Within this, increasing the direct
control of U.S. agents and even military is considered "good for
business" and necessary to protect "the bottom line" of
"Canadian" businesses which depend on cross border trade. Any
stand of principle, such as that Canada is a sovereign country
and its people have the right to a say over what goes on within
its territory and all matters that affect their lives, is
presented as opposed to "efficiency."

Far from defending Canadians, the government defends
the rule
of U.S. agents over the citizens and residents of Canada by
sowing doubt about the motives of Canadians in preclearance
facilities and even suggesting they are potential terrorists or
criminals. Minister of Public Safety Ralph Goodale, during debate
in the House of Commons on February 21, said that the powers to
detain Canadians who wish to withdraw from preclearance
procedures is "simply to prevent the illicit probing of preclearance
sites by people trying to find weaknesses in border
security before leaving the preclearance area undetected."

Broad Impunity for Border Agents

Claims that Canadians will be protected under the Charter
of
Rights
and
Freedoms from abuses by U.S. agents is not only
a diversion but simply not true. The Charter
is based on the
anti-democratic premise that arbitrary powers get to impose
so-called reasonable limits on rights.

Nonetheless, the issue of jurisdiction and what law
prevails
is significant as it concerns whose authority is supreme and its
aim. Where jurisdiction lies is an important matter at this time
not just because Canadians do not want to be subjected to the
whims of the U.S. state. An article in TML Weekly on
January 16, 2016, dealing with new Canada-U.S. security
arrangements at that time, pointed out: "The issue of which
authority presides over what jurisdiction is key to establishing
who will defend you under what circumstances."[3]
It also has implications for how
authorities can be held to account and the ability to seek
redress for wrongs.

In that regard, Bill C-23 will continue to provide
broad
impunity to U.S. border agents in Canada. In the case of
violations of the rights of Canadians or of Canadian law, the
U.S. has primary jurisdiction over investigation and prosecution,
which can be invoked by notifying the host country.

Immunity for preclearance officers and their decisions
in
Canada is also provided for, including:

- "No action or other proceeding of a civil nature may
be
brought against a preclearance officer in respect of anything
that is done or omitted in the exercise of their powers or the
performance of their duties and functions [...]

- "No decision of a preclearance officer to refuse to
conduct preclearance, or to
refuse the admission of persons or goods into the United States
in accordance with the laws of the United States, is subject to
judicial review in Canada."

A press release from the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security
concerning the Canada-U.S. preclearance agreement that preceded
the bill stated that "officer privileges and immunities" will be
addressed "through a shared jurisdictional framework in which the
sending country may generally exercise primary criminal
jurisdiction for acts committed by its officers in the
performance of official duties in the Host country."

In other words, the U.S. will continue to exercise
"primary
criminal jurisdiction for acts committed by its officers in the
performance of official duties." This entirely contradicts the
claims of the government that U.S. border agents will operate
"under the protective umbrella of Canadian law and the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

Presenting the adoption of Bill C-23 as a factor for
defending the rights of Canadians against U.S. agents, despite
where jurisdiction lies and the lack of any authority that will
defend Canadians, is a fraud. No matter whether these arbitrary
powers are endorsed by Canada's Parliament or claimed to be
exercised under the constitution, they cannot be legitimized in
the eyes of Canadians.

Notes

1. Areas of concern in Bill C-23

- Bill C-23 allows agents to "detain the traveller for
the
purpose of a strip search, if the officer also has reasonable
grounds to suspect that [...] the traveller has on their person
concealed goods or anything that would present a danger to human
life or safety, and [...] the search is necessary for the purpose
of maintaining the security of or control over the border."

- The bill allows U.S. border officers to detain an
individual "If a preclearance officer has reasonable grounds to
believe that a person has committed an offence under an Act of
Parliament..."

- Even if one is not detained, requesting withdrawal
from preclearance requires a traveler to "answer truthfully any
question asked by a preclearance officer [...] for the purpose of
identifying the traveller or of determining their reason for
withdrawing" and during that time border agents continue to
possess the same powers.

- Bill C-23 allows a U.S. officer to request that a
Canadian
Border Services Agent bring any U.S.-bound traveller -- presumably
within a given airport, rail station or border crossing -- to a
preclearance area where they will be under U.S. authority.

- On the use of force, Bill C-23 states that a U.S.
border
agent is, "if they act on reasonable grounds, justified in doing
what they are required or authorized to do under this Act and in
using as much force as is necessary for that purpose." This is
allegedly limited by a clarification in the bill that "a preclearance
officer is not justified in using force that is
intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm
unless the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that it is
necessary for self-preservation or the preservation of anyone
under the officer's protection from death or grievous bodily
harm."

2. Examples include:

- Fadwa Alaoui of Montreal tried to travel with her two
children to
Vermont to shop. U.S.
border agents turned her away after asking her questions about her
religion and her views on
President Donald Trump. Alaoui said most questions focused on her
religion. "I felt
humiliated, treated as if I was less than nothing," she told CBC News.

"He said, 'Do you practise? Which mosque do you go to?
What is the name
of the imam?
How often do you go to the mosque? What kind of discussions do you hear
in the mosque?
Does the imam talk to you directly?'" Alaoui said. Border agents also
asked her about Arabic
videos on her phone. She said they were videos of daily prayers. Agents
told her, "'You're
not allowed to go to the United States because we found videos on your
phone that are
against us," Alaoui said. (CBC News,
February 8)

- 19-year-old
University of Sherbrooke student Yassine Aber attempted to
cross the border in
Stanstead, Quebec to compete at a track meet in Boston. He was held for
five hours and
questioned by agents, who eventually denied him entry into the United
States.

"They asked me, 'Do you go to the mosque?' I said, 'Yes,
sometimes.'
They said, 'How
often? Which mosque do you go to?' They asked me about specific
people," he told CBC
News. Agents searched Aber's phone and allegedly found a photo on
Facebook from a
wedding in which he was tagged along with a former student who traveled
to Syria in 2014. (CBC News,
February 10)

- Manpreet Kooner, age 30 of Montreal was turned away at
the U.S. border
at the beginning of
March and told she needed a valid immigrant visa to enter the country.
Kooner said she was
held at the border for six hours before being turned away. (CBC News, March 6)

- Michael Potter of Windsor said he attempted to travel
to Detroit for
shopping and to see
friends and was taken into secondary screening and then frisked for 15
minutes in March and
subsequently denied entry. Potter said for over an hour he was called
back and forth to a desk
by an officer, asked one question at a time, and told to sit down.
After he was rejected, Potter
found his belongings strewn throughout his vehicle. He told media that
he had made the trip
many times before, and that he believes he was targeted after
mentioning his husband during
the screening process.

Potter is now calling on the Canadian Parliament to
reject Bill C-23,
which would allow "preclearance" by U.S. border agents with their full
powers to take place at border crossings
within Canada. "I just want to make sure that nobody else's rights are
violated and that this
can never happen on Canadian soil," he said. (CBC News, March 28. Innisfail Province,
April 4)

- Adeel Khan of Happy Valley-Goose Bay was stopped at
the border between
Quebec and New
York on March 22 on his way to visit his fiancée in Washington,
DC. Khan said that border
officers repeatedly asked about his place of birth. Officers claimed
they did not have
sufficient evidence that Khan would return to Canada. Khan also told
media that the officer
subsequently was bragging to superiors within audible distance, saying
"I stopped one of these
... Muhammads." (CBC News, March 28)

New Agreements Between Canada and
U.S. Homeland Security

- Charlie Vita -

More U.S. Agents to Be Placed in Canada

U.S.
Homeland
Security Secretary John Kelly, during his visit to Canada on March 10,
issued a joint statement with Public Safety Minister Ralph
Goodale outlining the areas that were
discussed and the "next steps." The joint statement also informed
that the two countries will continue to work on "cyber security,
critical infrastructure, trade enforcement, and countering
radicalization to violence, as well as joint border initiatives
such as trusted traveller programs."

It stated that this "starts with building on
our long history of successful passenger preclearance
operations." The statement said that Goodale and Kelly "discussed
next steps to expand preclearance to new locations in air, rail,
land, and marine modes" and that "Canada will also continue to
consider potential operations in the United States."

Of interest is the fact that Bill C-23, An Act
respecting the preclearance of persons and goods in Canada and the
United
States, which would authorize additional preclearance
facilities and expand placement of U.S. agents on Canadian soil,
has not even been debated in the House of Commons. Despite this,
the Trudeau government is already discussing "next steps":

"[W]hile there is still work to be done in terms of
legislation
with the passage of Bill C-23 in Canada, we tasked our officials
to report back on these issues, as well as negotiate a path
forward to pursue cargo preclearance or pre-inspection, including
identifying potential pilot sites," the joint statement said.

"Information Sharing"

"Information sharing" was presented as a tool for
identifying threats for purposes of providing security. Minister
Goodale and Secretary Kelly "reaffirmed [the] commitment to
information sharing on threats to both our countries and open
communication." The experience which shows that individuals have been
profiled and sent to torture on the basis of such "shared information"
is not to be discussed. The Trudeau government has now
officially apologized to three Canadians -- Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad
El Maati and Muayyed Nureddin -- who were deported after 9/11 on
the basis of false "intelligence." The term "information sharing"
is innocuous-sounding but many crimes have been committed and
continue to be committed as a result of false intelligence and
the use of arbitrary police powers.

Goodale and Kelly also
discussed new information sharing
mechanisms through the "Entry/Exit initiative once Canadian
legislative requirements are met through the passage of Bill
C-21." Bill C-21, An Act to Amend the Customs Act, is at
second reading in the House of Commons. Like other legislation
the Liberal government is enacting, it is part of establishing a
single "North American" security cordon under U.S. control. The
legislation would allow the Canada Border Services Agency to be
informed by the U.S. border agencies when anyone leaves Canada at
a land border crossing, permit Canadian border agents to inspect
goods normally exempt from the Customs Act
and share travel information with other agencies about Canadians
leaving the country.

This will increase the profiling of citizens and
residents
based on "travel patterns." The surveillance of citizens and
residents going about their private business and personal affairs
criminalizes everyone which is unacceptable. Human beings are
born to society and engage in many varied relationships on a
daily basis. Considering them potential criminals because a
so-called travel pattern unknown to themselves is suspicious
makes it impossible to live secure lives.

Goodale and Kelly also reaffirmed that Canada and the
U.S.
will continue to share information on those who cross the U.S.
border into Canada as asylum seekers and "work together to
understand migrant flows, and monitor the situation on our shared
land border, both at and between ports of entry." Asylum-seekers
are also not criminals and to treat them as such is a gross
violation of international humanitarian law.

Behind Talk About Terror Threats
in Canadian Airports

- Hilary LeBlanc -

During his March 10 visit to Canada, U.S. Homeland
Security
Secretary John Kelly told CTV's Power Play, "The most significant
threat is a terrorist attack I think on aviation. That seems to
be their Stanley Cup playoff. They want to knock down airplanes
and they are trying every day to do it."

He said "I can't count the number of airplanes that
have not
been
blown up in flight, whether they are United [Airlines] or Air
Canada, but I can tell you there are dozens of plots ongoing all
the time." Kelly said that over the past 15 years "we know there
are hundreds of plots that we have discovered and ended" and that
"there are dozens and dozens of ongoing plots to get to the
United States or blow up airplanes."

Kelly did not provide evidence, saying the information
was
classified. He stated that Canada and the United States are
considered "hard targets" by terrorists because of security
measures with the U.S. and "seamless" co-operation on the sharing
of information, including on passengers. Kelly suggests that
every day Canadians are not killed or injured in terror attacks because
of submitting to U.S. security agencies to protect
Canadians based on "classified information."

Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale was forced to
respond to
the claim and said, "No there is not a new specific threat
against Air Canada. Obviously if that were to be the case, we
would be taking a range of actions, but the Secretary was not
referring to a new immediate threat." Goodale covered up for
Kelly with talk about what the Secretary was "referring to"
rather than condemning the irresponsible fearmongering about
terrorists "trying every day" to "knock down airplanes."

Air Canada issued a strong
denial. "Air Canada's policy is
generally not to discuss issues of security. However there is no
truth whatsoever in the suggestion that Air Canada may have been
involved in such threats," its spokesperson Peter Fitzpatrick
told The Globe and Mail.

It is a longstanding practice of the U.S. to claim that
Canada is the origin of terrorist threats to the U.S. It has also
become commonplace to whip up fear in Canada of an imminent
terrorist attack to get people to accept the use of arbitrary
police powers. Furthermore, U.S. Secretary Kelly's reliance on
hyperbole is not
unlike the method of the Trump administration to smash the limits
of what has hitherto been considered statesmanlike discourse and
behaviour so as to set a "new normal." The protestations of
Minister Goodale and Air Canada notwithstanding, the idea that police
powers are warranted to guarantee security remains paramount.

Under the Presidency of George W. Bush, then-U.S.
Ambassador
to Canada Paul
Cellucci claimed that Canadians needed a terror attack on their
own soil to understand what the U.S. was doing in its war on
terror, and that a number of cities in southwestern Ontario could
be attacked. These statements followed Canada's decision to not
openly join the U.S. invasion of Iraq as well as the calls by the
North American financial oligarchy for Canada to enter into
security perimeter arrangements with the U.S. Kelly's
irresponsible statements today serve new demands for Canada to
submit to the expansion of U.S. domination in the name of
security.

Claims of ISIS Supporters in Montreal Airport

Less than three weeks after U.S. Homeland Security
Secretaty Kelly's irresponsible
remarks the Journal de Montreal reported on its
"investigations"
with
the TVA progam J.E. that Montreal's Pierre Elliott Trudeau
International Airport recently stripped some of its workers of
security clearances. As well, four workers had access to a
secured area withdrawn "as a precautionary measure." The
newspaper also stated that some of the employees had "visited
pro-Islamic (Daesh) websites, broadcast propaganda on social
networks, consulted an abnormal amount of documents dealing with
weapons or explosives."

The Journal de Montreal report said that of the
four
security clearances withdrawn, one was based on an alleged
comment sympathizing with the November 14, 2015 Paris attack, and
two were confiscated because of claims that workers had
"psychiatric problems" that could jeopardize safety.

In an example of profiling and sowing doubt based on
national
origins, the Journal de Montreal report stated that one of
those whose security clearance was revoked is "from North
Africa." He had allegedly shared an "ISIS propaganda video" on
his Facebook page. Then, contradictorily, the report claimed the
individual "seems to support" the Muslim Brotherhood and the
former President of Egypt Mohamed Morsi.

Spurious reporting such as this, which uses half-truths
and is decontextualized, follows the method used by U.S. Secretary
Kelly to
justify
increased police measures at Canada's airports. For more people
to be victimized by profiling based on racial, religious and
other criteria is unacceptable to Canadians.

The response of Minister of Transport Marc Garneau was
to say
that Canada's airports are secure because Canada's spy and police
agencies constantly screen and vet those who get security
clearances at airports, and to describe the screening and
monitoring process.[1]

The dubious reports about "ISIS supporters" working at
Canadian airports and Kelly's remarks about terrorists "trying
every day" to attack Canadian airlines come at a time when the
U.S. and Canadian governments are working out arrangements to
expand the presence of U.S. security agents in Canada.
Importantly, this means giving the U.S. a greater say over what
happens in Canada's transportation system, which includes who can and
cannot work in or near U.S. preclearance zones in airports.

All of these statements deprive Canadians of a sound
position
from which to consider issues of security and rights and are
instead intended to incite fears and inflame passions. For one,
Canadians should stand firm against any attempts to divide the working
class by painting airline workers as potential security threats or
accepting the state-organized profiling of Canadians based on their
national origin.

Important to keep in mind is the fact that it is the
U.S.
imperialists, their spy agencies and military forces which are
the main purveyors of terror around the world. These are now the
forces seeking more powers in Canada. As in the past, the
campaign to sow doubt about airport workers or claim daily plots
against Canadian airlines coincides with the U.S. push for
control over Canadian transportation security. Canadians should
not stand for it.

Note

1. In a March 29 statement,
Garneau said:

"In order to enter the restricted area of an airport,
airport
workers must obtain a Transportation Security Clearance (TSC)
from Transport Canada. Before a TSC is granted, Transport Canada
verifies that an individual does not pose a threat to the
Canadian Aviation System, including completing background checks
with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the RCMP, and
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada."

Adding, "as part of Transport Canada's ongoing vetting
process, all TSC holders with access to airport restricted areas
are verified daily in a police database. When criminal activity
is identified, we take immediate action and can suspend or revoke
the clearance of an individual. As part of our ongoing security
protocols, more than 1,100 clearances have been refused or
cancelled at airports across the country over the past 2
years.

"These daily police checks are part of our Government's
integrated and multi-layered transportation security system that
combines these partnerships, intelligence assessment and sharing,
policing, physical security, regulations, training and the use of
human and technical resources to help minimize risks. This
includes the requirement for airport workers to pass through a
screening checkpoint when accessing airport secure areas.

"Canadians can be assured that their Government takes
security matters very seriously and will not hesitate to take
appropriate action to mitigate risks and respond to any threats,
when identified, to the transportation system."

Increasing Placement of Canadian Military and Police
Agencies
Under U.S. Military Command

Recent developments show that far from playing a role
to defend Canada and its people should any genuine threats arise,
Canadian military and police forces are increasingly being placed under
foreign military command, namely that of the U.S. military. Having
Canada's military under the command of a foreign power, particularly an
imperialist power that is notorious for wars of aggression and regime
change, does not favour the cause of peace and security for Canadians;
nor does placing its police forces -- which are ostensibly subordinate
to the elected civilian authority -- under foreign military training
and command.

Military Training Under U.S. Command

From March 27 to April 13 more than 150 members of 1
Canadian
Mechanized Brigade Group from Edmonton, Alberta, deployed to
Joint Base Lewis-McChord near Tacoma, Washington, to participate
in Exercise SPECTRAL RAM. This was part of the U.S. military's
Exercise WARFIGHTER, a computer-assisted training event conducted
at the corps and division level.

According to U.S. Colonel Edward Bohnemar, the exercise
"allows units the ability to prepare their leaders and staffs to
seamlessly integrate within a higher headquarters to conduct
unified land operations."

Colonel Bill Fletcher, Commander of 1 Canadian
Mechanized
Brigade, said of this year's exercises, "The U.S. Army is our
closest ally and their hard-won combat experience at the division
level and beyond afford us the opportunity not only to practice
command and control, but to do so within a fully enabled
higher-level context. We are using this opportunity to build
cohesion in training prior to working together on the
battlefield."

Police Trained by U.S. Military

On March 31, an RCMP press release reported that some
of its
officers, as well as those of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP)
and Brockville Police Service, recently attended a "Shiprider
Training Program" at the U.S. Coast Guard Maritime Law
Enforcement Academy in Charleston, South Carolina. Unlike
its Canadian equivalent, the U.S. Coast Guard is a branch of the
armed forces.

The Canadian officers were being trained to join
"Canada-U.S. Integrated Cross Border Law Enforcement Operations,"
aka Shiprider. The training includes "completion of in-class
seminars, case-study scenarios, study of related criminal laws,
privacy laws and policies of both Canada and the U.S." Once
trained, armed Canadian police and U.S. border and coast guard
officers are given authority to enforce both countries' laws and
regulations while on jointly crewed boats on "shared
waterways."

The RCMP reports that there are currently 240
Shiprider-trained and cross-designated officers. Full-time
Shiprider operations have been established in:

Surrey, British Columbia/Bellingham, Washington State;
Victoria, British Columbia/Port Angeles, Washington State;
Windsor, Ontario/Detroit, Michigan; Niagara-on-the-Lake,
Ontario/Buffalo-Niagara, New York; Kingston, Ontario/Alexandria
Bay, New York (the Thousand Islands area of the St. Lawrence
River).

Canadian Embedded in Homeland Security

On February 28, the United States Department of
Homeland
Security,
Science and Technology Directorate (DHS S&T) and the Centre for
Security Science of Canadian
Defence Research (DRDC) and Development, announced that Colin
Murray will be the the first
Canadian "exchange officer" in DHS S&T operations.[1]

Dr. Marc Fortin, Assistant Deputy Minister (Science and
Technology)
and Chief
Executive Officer of DRDC spoke about the arrangement in glowing
terms, stating "Collaboration with our American counterparts is
key to finding solutions to common public safety and security
challenges. These types of arrangements are about leveraging the
best minds and assets in the innovation system to bolster already
existing ties and identify new areas for cooperation."

The background of the exchange officer, Colin Murray,
provides insights into what are the "common public safety
concerns and security challenges" being discussed.

Murray has in fact been embedded within the DHS S&T
structure
in Washington, DC since mid-December 2016. According to his LinkedIn
profile, he is an air force pilot who flew under the command of
the U.S. Navy for three years. His work with DRDC includes:
overseeing a team "to push the boundaries in domains such as
social media in emergency management, countering violent
extremism, responder interoperability, wireless technologies,
security exercises, community resilience, and major event
security such as at the 2010 Winter Olympics and the G20
Summit."[2]

In other words, Murray is involved in policing politics
and
criminalizing dissent, including surveillance and engagement
through social media and targeting people based on their ideas,
affiliations or beliefs. Such collaboration with the U.S. will
not guarantee the rights and security of Canadians or Americans
but undermine them.

Notes

1. The Science and Technology
Directorate is the primary
research and development arm of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security. The DRDC's Centre for Security Science is an agency
of Canada's
Department of National Defence (DND) that provides technology for
DND, the Canadian Armed Forces and other government departments
as well as the "public safety and national security communities"
to "defend and protect Canada's interests at home and
abroad."

2. The North American Aerospace
Defence Command, which is
under U.S. Northern Command was involved in commanding security
operations during both the Vancouver Olympics and the G20 in
Toronto, which Murray claims to have been involved with in some
capacity. It was during the protests against the G20 in
particular that police forces preemptively arrested those they
labelled as "violent extremists" the day before protests began,
establishing an atmosphere of anarchy and violence in which a
massive police response was presented as being justified.

Opposition to U.S. Attacks Against Syria

Demonstrations Across Canada and U.S.
Condemn Illegal U.S.
Air Strike Against Syria

Ottawa, April 8, 2017.

Following the illegal U.S. missile strikes against Syria
on April 6, Canadians from all walks of life, including representatives
of the Syrian community in Canada, demonstrated to oppose the U.S.
attack and Canada's support for U.S. aims of regime change and war in
Syria. The spirit of all the actions
was to uphold Syria's
sovereignty, oppose continuing imperialist interference in Syria and
denounce the use of
fraudulent pretexts to justify aggression and regime change.
Demonstrations also took place
throughout the U.S. and around the world.

Canadians who demonstrated
denounced the chorus from the monopoly media and those who claim to
represent Canadians in Parliament and government which repeats the
spurious claims of U.S. President Donald Trump about who is responsible
for the April 4 deaths in Syria as a result of exposure to toxic
chemicals. People emphasized that it is unacceptable for the U.S. to
make such accusations without presenting any evidence and not
permitting an investigation. They condemned the launch of attacks
against a sovereign country under any guise, including citing
humanitarian concerns. In this case, speakers pointed out that the
imperialists' own forces inside Syria are also accused of possessing
and using chemical weapons. The self-righteousness of the U.S.
imperialists who claim they have never used chemical weapons is
deplorable. Among other crimes, they are the ones who used Agent Orange
against the Vietnamese people, who still suffer its consequences.[1]

In that regard, many placards and speakers throughout the country drew
parallels with the U.S. wars of aggression against Iraq and Libya,
which were both launched on the basis of claims later proven to be
lies. The U.S. still must be held to account for these lies and the war
crimes that followed, people emphasized. This is a serious problem of
the international system, not that Russia and China exercise veto power
at the UN Security Council against attempts by the U.S. to legitimize
its attacks. What is needed is a united front of the peoples against
aggressive war.

The position of the Trudeau government, which has shown
itself to be a war government servile to U.S. imperialist interests was
also condemned. In less than 24 hours, Prime Minister Trudeau went from
calling for an investigation into who was to blame for the April 4
chemical weapons deaths to applauding the U.S. airstrikes and declaring
the Syrian government responsible reportedly after "a trusted and
reliable ally in the United States informed us that the Assad regime
was responsible for these chemical attacks." In this way the same
military and security agenices who cannot predict anything and are
involved in vicious factional fighting within the U.S. are presented as
"trusted" and given a role in decision making in Canada. Following the
remarks of Donald Trump on April 6 calling on "all civilized nations to
join" the U.S. campaign against Syria, Trudeau and his Ministers
declared that "all civilized peoples" must "speak with one voice" in
favour of U.S. actions. On April 10, Trudeau continued to toe the U.S.
line, calling for "peace and stability in [a] Syria that does not
involve [Syria's elected president] Bashar al-Assad."[2]

Canadians of Syrian origin pointed
out that the Syrian people have been fighting for a resolution to the
crisis led by the Syrian people themselves, but continued interference
by the U.S. and that of the big European powers, Canada, Turkey,
Israel, Saudi Arabia and others, including the sponsorship of terrorist
groups inside the country, has been a major obstacle. They denounced
the fact that the U.S. has intervened once again to directly support
groups that have terrorized the Syrian people including ISIL, the
Al-Nusra Front and others. They opposed Canada's intervention in Syria
in support of the U.S. agenda, supporting groups working for regime
change. They affirmed that Syria needs peace but that this will not be
achieved by U.S. attacks and violation of sovereignty or any further
destruction of Syria's legitimate institutions. Far from it, U.S. and
Canadian interference aims to prolong the crisis and prevent any
Syrian-led solution, and will create further tragedies.

In Montreal, a Syrian refugee youth said that Canadian authorities have
pressured her to repeat the line of the U.S. and Canadian state on the
crisis in Syria and say that the Syrian government in responsible for
the humanitarian tragedies. She stated that she refused to do so and
continues to defend her country against this aggression.

Many of those who came forward in these actions to
denounce the U.S.
missile strikes against Syria and the escalation of the war danger by
the U.S. imperialists also demanded that Canada be a zone for peace and
called for Canadians to establish an anti-war government. Demonstrators
pledged to step up the work to mobilize Canadians to ensure that the
Trudeau war government cannot speak in their name and to oppose any
further U.S. attacks.

Note

1. On April 11,
White House press secretary Sean Spicer went so far as to say, “We
didn’t use chemical weapons in world war two" and then claimed that
even Hitler had not used chemical weapons. "You had someone as
despicable as Hitler who didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons."
When this claim was challenged, he replied, "Thank you, I appreciate
that. There was not in the -- he brought them into the Holocaust
centres -- I understand that. But I’m saying in the way that Assad used
them, where he went into towns, dropped them down into the middle of
towns."

2.
Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, following a meeting of G7 foreign
ministers in Italy on April 11, stated, "Canada is very much of the
view that, particularly in the wake of what is a war crime -- the use
of chemical weapons last week -- that Assad has to go." The Trudeau
government also took up the line of the U.S. that Russia, by virtue of
its military and political support for the Syrian government, is
therefore culpable for the alleged chemical attack. Freeland stated,
"Russia needs to decide whether it wants to double down on its support
for this murderous regime ... or whether it wants to say: 'We do not
want to be associated with this.'"

On April 10, U.S. President Trump and British Prime Minister Theresa
May claimed that the U.S. strike offered Russia a "window of
opportunity" to accept that "its allegiance with Assad is no longer in
its strategic interest." May and Trump declared that the visit of U.S.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to Moscow on April 11 and 12 along
with the G7 Foreign Ministers meeting taking place at the same time
would provide "an opportunity to make progress towards a solution which
will deliver a lasting political settlement."

At the G7 meeting on April 11, the U.S. and the UK led by British
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson called for new sanctions against the
Russian Federation, allegedly in retaliation for its continued support
for Syria. According to news reports, this proposal was vetoed by
German and Italian as well as European Union representatives. Media
reported
that the failure to secure agreement on new sanctions against Russia
and the failure of U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to convince
Russian representatives of the need for regime change in Syria during
his visit to Moscow on April 11 and 12 meant that "window" has closed.

U.S. Threatens Korean Peninsula with
Carrier
Strike Group

Hands Off the DPRK! U.S. Troops Out of Korea!
U.S.
Must
Sign a Peace Treaty Now!

Organized
by
Communist
Party
of
Canada
(Marxist-Leninist)
and
Korean
Federation
in
Canada
For information: (647) 907-7915

On April 8, the U.S.
military's Pacific Command announced
that it was deploying the Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group of the
U.S. Third Fleet to Korean waters, ostensibly to confront the
"threat" posed by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
(DPRK). Given the already tense situation on the Korean Peninsula
-- the result of U.S. refusal to negotiate a peace treaty and
normalize relations with the DPRK for nearly 65 years -- this
latest U.S. aggression could set the stage for a nuclear or world
war. It must not pass! The pretext for the deployment is the
DPRK's April 5 missile test. This denies that the DPRK has been
forced into a corner to defend its sovereignty against ceaseless
aggression since the U.S. was defeated in the Korean War in
1953.

The Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group was in Korean
waters
earlier this
year as part of the Key Resolve/Foal Eagle war exercises for
invasion and regime change in the DPRK that began in March, with
bombers, fighters and ships capable of delivering nuclear
weapons. These were the largest exercises in 40 years and an expression
of
the aggressive Japan-south Korea-U.S. military alliance. While on
its
way to Australia, the strike group was pointedly ordered back to
the region as a further threat to the DPRK. It includes the
Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70),
the Arleigh Burke-classguided-missile destroyers USS Wayne
E.
Meyer (DDG 108) and USS Michael Murphy (DDG 112), and
Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Lake
Champlain (CG 57).

The strike group's deployment came two days after the
Trump administration's illegal airstrikes on Syria. President Trump
ordered the strikes during his summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping
in Florida, which included U.S. demands that China "rein in" the DPRK.
This timing can be seen as a thinly-veiled threat, despite news reports
that the discussions between Trump and Xi were allegedly friendly.
These actions reiterate the imperialist dictum that "Might Makes Right"
and underscore that the Trump administration is a government of police
powers that operates outside the UN Charter, international law and
diplomatic norms, and is willing to endanger humanity to assert U.S.
hegemony.

This development also follows remarks by U.S. Secretary
of
State Rex Tillerson during his visit to Seoul, south Korea in
March, that the Trump administration was abandoning the Obama
administration's policy of "strategic patience" toward the DPRK
because it had "failed." Tillerson claimed that the U.S.
government does not want to take military action but that "all
options are on the table," which it openly states includes the
option of a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

Long History of U.S. Nuclear Weapons on Korean
Peninsula

The U.S. introduced the first nuclear weapon onto south
Korean soil in 1958 -- a missile that could carry a nuclear warhead
called "Honest John." It has continued to bring more nuclear weapons
since that time. Its claim to have removed its nuclear weapons from
south Korea in 1992 is bogus as its warships and aircraft stationed
around the Korean Peninsula have always had the capability to deliver a
nuclear strike. Today, there are 90 U.S. land and sea bases in south
Korea with 30,000 troops armed with the latest weapons.

Furthermore, it has come to
light that the south Korean government of President Park Chung-hee
(1963-1979), the father of recently imprisoned south Korean president
Park Guen-hye, tried to build a secret nuclear weapons program in the
1970s. A recent article by U.S. journalist Wayne Madsen points out: "In
a secret cable from Seoul to the State Department dated November 4,
1974, the U.S. ambassador in Seoul Richard Sneider informed State that
in conversations with the Canadian ambassador in Seoul, James Alexander
Stiles, the Canadian envoy indicated that he was aware of a potential
south Korean 'diversion program' to funnel Canadian nuclear power
technology to Seoul's covert nuclear weapons program."[1] Madsen points out that the
International Atomic Energy Agency discovered in 2004 that south
Korea's Atomic Energy Research Institute secretly engaged in plutonium
enrichment to make nuclear weapons.

Now, the Trump administration is considering openly
placing
nuclear weapons in south Korea once again, based on the
irrational claim that it is the DPRK that poses a threat and
requires a nuclear deterrent. It has even floated the possibility
of permitting Japan to develop nuclear weapons.

The Korean people have consistently opposed U.S.
aggression
and the presence of U.S. troops and bases on Korean soil. Most recently
they have been in motion for months to oppose the installation of the
terminal high altitude area defence missile defence (THAAD) system in
south Korea that poses a danger to the region, and is also opposed by
China and Russia. For years they have opposed the presence of U.S.
bases, including the construction of a new U.S. naval base on Jeju
Island. They will surely stand opposed to the U.S. and their south
Korean stooges re-introducing nuclear weapons to south Korea.

The U.S. has spurned the DPRK's many invitations to
sign a peace treaty and sabotaged all efforts by China to broker a
political solution to denuclearize the Korean peninsula via the "Six
Party Talks" involving the U.S., China, the DPRK, south Korea, Japan
and Russia. This intransigence underscores who is for peace and who is
for war.

The U.S. imperialists have never given up their ambition
to take over the strategically located Korean Peninsula, a beachhead
from which they could then conquer all of Asia. The U.S. divided the
Korean Peninsula in 1945 and has maintained a military presence in
south Korea since then. It waged the illegal Korean War from 1950-53 to
keep Korea divided and the people subjugated. It is important to keep
in mind that this war of aggression included the wholesale destruction
of Korean cities and towns including virtually all buildings in the
capital of the DPRK, Pyongyang; targeting the DPRK's hydroelectric dams
to leave the country without power and flood the countryside; and
killing at least 3 million Koreans. U.S. Air Force General Curtis
LeMay, head of the Strategic Air Command during the Korean War later
remarked, "Over a period of three years or so, we killed off 20 percent
of the population."

The DPRK, with the assistance of the Chinese People's Volunteer Army,
defeated the U.S. and forced it to sign the Armistice Agreement. Since
then, the U.S. and its allies -- including Canada -- have tried to
isolate the DPRK with military threats and blackmail, as well as
crippling financial and commercial sanctions, justified using virulent
anti-communist disinformation, such as a bogus campaign decrying "human
rights violations." The DPRK has simply refused to submit. In the face
of this, the U.S. imperialists blame the victims and even portray them
as paranoid.

Canadians should look objectively at the facts and draw
warranted conclusions about who is really the "threat" on the
Korean Peninsula. Moreover, the situation requires that people
revitalize the anti-war movement and work out how Canada can take
a principled and independent anti-war stand against imperialist
aggression on the Korean Peninsula and around the world that
rejects the use of force to sort out differences between peoples
and nations. Canadians must reject the cutting of deals with the
Trump administration, taken up by the
Trudeau Liberals, that is embroiling Canada in U.S. aggression on
the
basis that this will ensure Canada's security. Canadians must affirm
that there is One
Humanity and One Struggle! and that Our Security Lies in
the Fight for the Rights of All!

This dangerous situation calls for all peace- and
justice-loving people to speak out as one against this latest act of
U.S. aggression against the DPRK and to demand that the Trump
administration stand down, stop its nuclear blackmail and provocations
against the DPRK and sign a peace treaty now. This is the demand of the
Korean people, the Canadian people and all humanity.

Hands off the DPRK! U.S. Must Sign a
Peace Treaty
with the DPRK Now!
No to Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group in
Korean Waters!
No to U.S.-south Korea Key Resolve Military
Exercises!
No to Missile Defence on Korean Soil! U.S. Troops Out
of Korea!

Note

1. Wayne Madsen, "The North Korean
Issue Will Not be Solved on America's Terms Alone," Strategic
Culture Foundation, April 8, 2017.

21st International Seminar
"Parties and
a New Society"

Political Parties Gather in Mexico to Deliberate
on Unfolding
Developments

From March 23 to 25, the 21st International
Seminar "Parties and a New Society," hosted by the Workers' Party
of Mexico (PT), was held in Mexico City.

For the 21st year in a row, the Communist Party of
Canada (Marxist-Leninist) participated, represented this year by a
delegation from the International Commission of its Central Committee.
It joined 270 other delegates representing 127 communist, workers' and
progressive political parties and organizations from 36 countries from
five continents. More than 200 Mexican delegates from different states
of the Republic also participated in the proceedings.

The seminar was organized into sessions for discussion
and exchange of experiences in the following three areas:

1.
Summation of the program to build the transition to governments with
alternative nation-building projects;

2. Response to the counter-offensive of imperialism against governments
and alternative nation-building projects;

3.
Current
topics
such
as
the
consequences
for
Latin
America
and
the
world
of
the
election of Donald Trump as U.S. President, the fight against
colonialism and neocolonialism, peace and militarism.

A
major
preoccupation
of
many
delegations
was
the
significance
of
Trump's
election
and
how
to
view the current situation. This is the topic the
delegation of CPC(M-L) addressed and there was also a special panel on
the matter. The presentation of CPC(M-L) has been reproduced below.

The
opening
session
of
the
Seminar
was
dedicated
to
the
life
and
work of
Comrade Fidel Castro. This was fitting, as a main theme throughout the
proceedings was one that Fidel espoused -- the need for the broadest
possible unity of the peoples for the purpose of advancing the building
of the new society.

The Seminar was attended by a number of personalities
who spoke about particular fights of importance taking place at this
time in their countries. Former Colombian Senator Piedad Córdoba
called on everyone to support the implementation of the peace agreement
between the Government of Colombia and the Revolutionary Armed Forces
of Colombia (FARC) and emphasized the need for a similar agreement to
be reached with the National Liberation Army (ELN). Honduran
presidential candidate Xiomara Castro of the Libre Party also spoke, as
did Adán Chávez of the United Socialist Party (PSUV),
Venezuela's Minister of Culture. A Puerto Rican university youth spoke
of the students’ fight against drastic cuts to post-secondary education
being demanded by the U.S.-imposed Financial Control Board, and the
fact that the youth are in the front ranks of the struggle for Puerto
Rico’s independence from colonial rule.

Resolutions adopted included denunciations of the
nefarious activities taking place against Venezuela in the Organization
of American States and support for the right of the Boliviarian
republic
and people of Venezuela to realize their destiny free from outside
interference. Another expressed support for peace in Colombia and the
freeing of FARC-EP member Simon Trinidad who continues to be held as a
political prisoner in the U.S. Others expressed support for the
progressive forces in Ecuador in their determination to elect Alianza
País candidate Lenín Moreno in the April 2 presidential
election, for
an end to the persecution of Basque political prisoners by the
government of Spain, for the release of political prisoner Milagro Sala
in Argentina, for the Mexican government to account for the fate of
the 43 missing student teachers (the Ayotzinapa 43) and support for the
people of Palestine.

(Photos: PT)

On the Significance of the
New Trump Administration

- Presentation of the Communist Party of
Canada
(Marxist-Leninist) -

View of seminar hall, March 24, 2017.

Donald Trump's election represents the will of a
section
of the ruling class to establish a police state and overcome the
limits of the U.S. Constitution. Another section of the
ruling class also wants to establish a police state while
maintaining a constitutional appearance.

Many in the United States and Europe believe that the
election of Trump and the possible election of Marine Le Pen in France
represent the triumph of the extreme right. They say that xenophobia
and fear of economic insecurity motivate the people to vote in favour
of the extreme right. They accept the elections as a legitimate
expression of the will of the people, when they are actually a fraud.
The people are deprived of the possibility of electing their own
representatives and setting their own agenda; it is the ruling circles
that choose the candidates and they also set the ideological and
political framework of the election campaign. Saying that these
presidents are elected by the people is in contempt of the
conception of elections. Blaming the people for racism and
xenophobia is also not sound as it ignores the fact that the
colonial divide and rule policy remains the policy of the ruling
elite of today. Donald Trump's election confirms this to be the
case and shows that racism and racist attacks are indeed
state-organized.

Accepting that Trump's election is a problem of the
extreme
right taking over, implies that Clinton, Hollande, Trudeau, Fox,
Obama and others are the centre, centre-left, or the left. In
fact, they all adhere to neo-liberalism and its anti-worker,
racist, warmongering and nation-wrecking program, that is to say, a
"right-wing agenda."

Obama's presidency saw far more assassinations by
drones and
many more presidential decrees than occurred during the reign of
his predecessor, George W. Bush. Still we are told that Obama was
not as dangerous as Trump. Similarly, it is said that Hollande is
not as bad as Marine Le Pen, although it was Hollande who used
the exceptional measures adopted following several terrorist
attacks to incorporate these police powers into the French
Constitution.

The French nation-state and its public authority are
mired in
crisis whereby police powers are the only aspect that remain of
the public authority. The very idea that a government of police
powers can be considered a government of laws is absurd. One has
only to think of the Pinochet government in Chile or the
Argentinian governments during Operation Condor to see how absurd
it is to believe that the conditions of governments of police
powers can be compatible with a government of laws.

Therefore, in our opinion, it makes no sense to persist
in
seeing this as an opposition between right-wing, extreme
right-wing, centre and left ideologies and policies, since that
does not correspond to anything in reality. Although a stern
ideological struggle is needed against the bourgeoisie and its
racist, misogynist, anti-worker and anti-communist outlook and
values, we do not think it useful to say that problems in the
United States (or even Europe) are ideological as such.

According to our analysis of the situation, we are
confronted with a very particular historical moment in which the old
forms established in the constitutions of the bourgeois nation-states
as created in the 18th and 19th centuries and which gave birth to the
kind of civil society that was necessary for the bourgeoisie to protect
its property rights at that time, are forms that have outplayed their
role, are exhausted and no longer function. The arrangements, the
institutions, the form of elections to give them legitimacy and of
distributing powers among the different levels of government, the way
of establishing citizenship and conferring rights according to their
definition by the ruling class, etc. -- all this has become obsolete
and anachronistic. Those forms are exhausted.

On the other hand, the forms
demanded by the new
society of
socialized humanity required today are yet to be created.
Humanity has not yet succeeded in giving birth to the new forms
that our societies need which are based not on the defence of
rights defined by ownership of property but on the defence of the
rights that all possess by virtue of being human. These forms are
born of the resistance struggle waged to oppose the denial of
rights and the theoretical work necessary for their elaboration,
as is seen, for example, in Cuba and elsewhere where the refusal
to reconcile with the abandonment of the human being leads to the
discovery of new forms, new ways of doing things.

In our view, the sharpest struggle within the ranks of
the
big bourgeoisie in the U.S. is between those who, like Trump,
want unlimited police powers and those who want these same police
powers given the constitutional sanction. Without drawing
unwarranted historical parallels, the situation is reminiscent of
the factional fights within the Hitlerite bureaucracy between the
extreme wing of the Nazi forces which formed the Brownshirts and
wanted to liquidate all Jews and the wing that wanted rules to
recognize who was a Jew for purposes of knowing how to
distinguish who to expel, dispossess and send to their death.

It is not without reason that following the fall of the
Soviet Union the corporate media sought to disinform public
opinion by telling stories of fights between "conservatives" and
"moderates." After that, we were told of struggles between Muslim
"fundamentalists" -- i.e. "extremists" and "moderates." All of it
is done to conceal the need to build the people's united front in
defence of their own interests, so that the struggle against the
old world does not give birth to a new world built by human
beings. People are to be kept hostage to the private interests of
the world's pro-war oligopolies.

It is clear based on Trump's behaviour, there is an
attempt
to see how far he can go in doing whatever he wants. Any
limitations on the use of police powers imposed by the
Constitution are under attack. Trump's executive orders test what
these limits are, to see who will succeed in opposing them and
how to overcome this opposition. It is a matter of assessing how
far the Trump presidency can go in this direction. The position of
the opposition to Trump declares his decrees are unconstitutional
and resorts to the judicial process as much as possible to
enforce the limits of a constitution in crisis, a constitution
that no longer meets the needs of the present.

This contradiction is also reflected in the fights
between
federal and states' rights. We cannot ignore that 13 sovereign
republics created the United States of America. They have rights
that the federal government now wants to take away because the
privatization program is run by oligopolies in all sectors, be it
energy, automobile and war equipment, water, education, health,
or rather the "health industry" as it is called, and so on. Even
the armed forces are privatized today, as are police and security
forces. We cannot ignore that the states and cities which have
claimed to be sanctuaries for those targeted by the Trump
administration for deportation have enormous police powers of
their own and they are challenging the federal powers. When a
state or a sanctuary city says it will defend immigrants, no one
in the U.S. forgets for a minute that their police forces are as
racist, xenophobic and murderous, especially against Black or
Mexican or Latino communities, as the federal power.

In opposition to racist and anti-immigrant measures,
the
people can exploit these differences between the federal
government and the power of sanctuary states and cities to defend
themselves in specific circumstances, such as those that exist
today. In this sense, resistance is courageously reaffirmed once
again with all its very important characteristics but on the
condition that it does not succumb to the illusion that the
United States Constitution can be used to defend the rights of
the people if only the so-called moderate forces could win the
battle against the so-called extremist forces. Resistance must be
directed by efforts that lead to the creation of a united front
of the American people around its working class and must draw on
its experience of struggle and resistance to forge and realize a
vision of the world that defends the rights of all.

In this regard, we believe it is important to also
deploy the
necessary efforts to build our internationalist unity, in our
case between the people of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico against
U.S. imperialist aims to integrate the three states and
governments to create a Fortress North America -- a new
imperialist state directed against the peoples of the world.

In Canada, the Trudeau government is trying very hard
to
persuade the Trump administration that the Canadian economy is so
integrated with the U.S. that Canada should not be targeted with
measures such as those it is taking against Mexico, which it
considers reasonable as long as they do not apply to Canada.

We rely entirely on the
program of the working class of
Canada, the U.S. and Mexico to defend our national interests on
the basis of new arrangements that defend human beings and not
the private ownership of oligopolies. Our slogan is "One
Humanity, One Struggle."

In this regard we are making every effort to strengthen
the
anti-war movement so that Canada can become a zone of peace just
as CELAC has declared for Latin America and the Caribbean. We
also join with all the progressive forces in demanding an end to
the blockade against Cuba as well as the closure of the U.S.
military base at Guantánamo and the return of that national
territory to Cuba. We congratulate the leadership of the Cuban
Communist Party, its members and the Cuban people for having
found in its heroic resistance struggle the forms for the renewal
and safeguarding of its social project. We also congratulate the
Venezuelan, Colombian and other peoples for finding a way forward
in defending their rights in the conditions they face. They will
overcome the reaction.

In closing, we want to express our full confidence in
the
people of Canada, the U.S., Mexico and all countries and their
ability to continue their resistance struggle against attempts of
imperialism and reaction to deprive us of the rights which belong
to us as human beings who depend on modern societies for our
livelihood and for our well-being, and that from this resistance
struggle the new forms required by society will come into
being.